背景與目的: 下肢負重測試可評估胺幣穩定能力和服肌表現，但缺乏量化標準﹒且未知腹部肌群參與情形。 本研究目的為睞解教導腹部內縮動作後，執行此測試時前外側腹部肌群參與程度與下背痛對這些肌;群收縮程度 的影響。實驗設計: 橫斷面病例對照研究。方法: 選取下背痛與健康受試者各20 位。使用壓力生物回饋儀與 超音波影像收取學腳下降在體屈曲90 - 1 5 度時腰椎下壓力值與前外側腹部肌群的收縮厚度比。以重被測試變 分析不同角度和有無下背痛的影響。結果: 隨著儷屈曲角度減少﹒兩組腹內斜肌的收縮明顯上升﹒但在髓關 節屈曲小於45 度時下背痛組比健康組的腹樣肌收縮程度顯著較小(p < .0 1) 。結論:在單腳下降峙，肢橫肌負 責基本的腰僻穩定，腹內斜肌則可增加收縮以應付負荷挑戰。隨著負荷上升，健康受試組能維持股橫肌收縮程 度， 而下背痛組腹橫月IL 收縮程度則在慨屈曲的度以下明顯降1~ 。臨床應用: 建議下背捕者使用單腳下降運動 訓練肢槓肌，在負荷增加時應避免使用其他肌群代償。( 物理治療20 1 6;4 1 (2):96-1 05)

Backgrotuuh Leg loading test may be used to assess lumbopelvic stability as well as the performance of abdominal muscles. However, the test lacks quantification standards, and the participation of the anterolateral abdominal muscles was not clear. Objectives： Tfie study aimed to investigate if the roles of the anterolateral abdominal muscles were different during che leg loading test and if the contraction pattern of the anterolateral abdominal muscles would differ between those with or without low back pain (LBP) after the subjects learned the abdominal drawn-in maneuvers. Study design: Cross-sectional, case-comparison study. Procedures and measurement: 20 subjects with low back pain and 20 asymptomatic age-and-sex matched control subjects participated in the study. Tlie subjects performed leg loading test with one leg lowered to 90° - 15° of hip flexion. Lumbopelvic pressure on the pressure biofeedback unit and thickness of the anterolateral abdominal wall were collected with real-time ultrasound imaging.Data analysis; Analyses of variance with repeated measures were performed to determine if lumbopelvic pressure or contraction racios of the anterolateral abdominal muscles differed in different hip angles between those with or without LBP during the !cg loading test. Results： Tlie contraction ratio of internal oblique abdominis (10) increased with decreasing hip angles in both groups, while the contraction thickness of transverse abdominis (TrA) decreased only in subjects with LBP at 45°, 30°, and 15° of hip flexion (p < ,01). Conclusion & clinical relevance: During the leg loading cesc, TrA in healthy subjects could maintain a constant level of contraction when rhe lumbopelvic stability was maintained, while IO would increase contraction to adapt to the challenge of increasing loads. On the other hand, the ability of TrA to maintain a constant level of contraction was impaired in subjects with LBR especially at hip angles smaller than 45°. We suggest that when training TrA with the leg lowering maneuvers, care must be taken as the load increases (e.g.} below 45° of hip flexion) to avoid compensation From other muscles. (FJPT 2016;4l(2)：96-105)